This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the actual
binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has been in Arch for
ages (probably for ever), but I can not see what this change will
break. Having the symlink does break some stuff (FS#19063). Note
that Fedora moved from the symlink to the binary for "[" in 2004.
Signoff both,
Allan
04-13-2010, 12:11 PM
Andrea Scarpino
coreutils 8.4-3
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
> This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the actual
> binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has been in Arch for
> ages (probably for ever), but I can not see what this change will
> break. Having the symlink does break some stuff (FS#19063). Note
> that Fedora moved from the symlink to the binary for "[" in 2004.
>
> Signoff both,
> Allan
signoff x86_64
--
Andrea | deelab.org/bash
04-14-2010, 04:42 PM
Dieter Plaetinck
coreutils 8.4-3
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:11:43 +0200
Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
> > This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the
> > actual binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has been
> > in Arch for ages (probably for ever), but I can not see what this
> > change will break. Having the symlink does break some stuff
> > (FS#19063). Note that Fedora moved from the symlink to the binary
> > for "[" in 2004.
> >
> > Signoff both,
> > Allan
> signoff x86_64
>
so what exactly does the binary do? is it an exact copy
of /usr/bin/test, is it a small program that does exec(), or .. ?
I downloaded the 8.4 tarball but couldn't quickly find the answer.
Dieter
04-14-2010, 05:40 PM
Thomas Bächler
coreutils 8.4-3
Am 14.04.2010 18:42, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
>> On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
>>> This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the
>>> actual binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has been
>>> in Arch for ages (probably for ever), but I can not see what this
>>> change will break. Having the symlink does break some stuff
>>> (FS#19063). Note that Fedora moved from the symlink to the binary
>>> for "[" in 2004.
>
> so what exactly does the binary do? is it an exact copy
> of /usr/bin/test, is it a small program that does exec(), or .. ?
> I downloaded the 8.4 tarball but couldn't quickly find the answer.
I don't think it matters. Neither [ nor test from coreutils are actually
ever used - the bash (or whatever shell you use) builtins [ and test are
used instead.
04-14-2010, 11:28 PM
Allan McRae
coreutils 8.4-3
On 15/04/10 03:40, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 14.04.2010 18:42, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the
actual binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has been
in Arch for ages (probably for ever), but I can not see what this
change will break. Having the symlink does break some stuff
(FS#19063). Note that Fedora moved from the symlink to the binary
for "[" in 2004.
so what exactly does the binary do? is it an exact copy
of /usr/bin/test, is it a small program that does exec(), or .. ?
I downloaded the 8.4 tarball but couldn't quickly find the answer.
I don't think it matters. Neither [ nor test from coreutils are actually
ever used - the bash (or whatever shell you use) builtins [ and test are
used instead.
In general, this is the only real difference:
NOTE: [ honors the --help and --version options, but test does not.
test treats each of those as it treats any other nonempty STRING.
The rest I think is better compatibility with test synatx when your
shell does not provide "[".
Anyway, we should be supplying what upstream installs.
Allan
04-15-2010, 07:10 AM
Dieter Plaetinck
coreutils 8.4-3
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:28:04 +1000
Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 15/04/10 03:40, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> > Am 14.04.2010 18:42, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
> >>> On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>> This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the
> >>>> actual binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has
> >>>> been in Arch for ages (probably for ever), but I can not see
> >>>> what this change will break. Having the symlink does break
> >>>> some stuff (FS#19063). Note that Fedora moved from the symlink
> >>>> to the binary for "[" in 2004.
> >>
> >> so what exactly does the binary do? is it an exact copy
> >> of /usr/bin/test, is it a small program that does exec(), or .. ?
> >> I downloaded the 8.4 tarball but couldn't quickly find the answer.
> >
> > I don't think it matters. Neither [ nor test from coreutils are
> > actually ever used - the bash (or whatever shell you use) builtins
> > [ and test are used instead.
> >
>
> In general, this is the only real difference:
> NOTE: [ honors the --help and --version options, but test does not.
> test treats each of those as it treats any other nonempty STRING.
>
> The rest I think is better compatibility with test synatx when your
> shell does not provide "[".
>
> Anyway, we should be supplying what upstream installs.
I asked it just out of curiosity. I agree we should stick to
upstream.
Dieter
04-15-2010, 10:04 AM
Allan McRae
coreutils 8.4-3
On 15/04/10 17:10, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:28:04 +1000
Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 15/04/10 03:40, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 14.04.2010 18:42, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the
actual binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has
been in Arch for ages (probably for ever), but I can not see
what this change will break. Having the symlink does break
some stuff (FS#19063). Note that Fedora moved from the symlink
to the binary for "[" in 2004.
so what exactly does the binary do? is it an exact copy
of /usr/bin/test, is it a small program that does exec(), or .. ?
I downloaded the 8.4 tarball but couldn't quickly find the answer.
I don't think it matters. Neither [ nor test from coreutils are
actually ever used - the bash (or whatever shell you use) builtins
[ and test are used instead.
In general, this is the only real difference:
NOTE: [ honors the --help and --version options, but test does not.
test treats each of those as it treats any other nonempty STRING.
The rest I think is better compatibility with test synatx when your
shell does not provide "[".
Anyway, we should be supplying what upstream installs.
I asked it just out of curiosity. I agree we should stick to
upstream.
Anyway.... can I now have an i686 signoff? :P
04-24-2010, 07:12 AM
Allan McRae
coreutils 8.4-3
On 15/04/10 20:04, Allan McRae wrote:
On 15/04/10 17:10, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:28:04 +1000
Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 15/04/10 03:40, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 14.04.2010 18:42, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 14:04:44 Allan McRae wrote:
This changes /usr/bin/[ from a symlink to /usr/bin/test to the
actual binary provided upstream. The use of the symlink has
been in Arch for ages (probably for ever), but I can not see
what this change will break. Having the symlink does break
some stuff (FS#19063). Note that Fedora moved from the symlink
to the binary for "[" in 2004.
so what exactly does the binary do? is it an exact copy
of /usr/bin/test, is it a small program that does exec(), or .. ?
I downloaded the 8.4 tarball but couldn't quickly find the answer.
I don't think it matters. Neither [ nor test from coreutils are
actually ever used - the bash (or whatever shell you use) builtins
[ and test are used instead.
In general, this is the only real difference:
NOTE: [ honors the --help and --version options, but test does not.
test treats each of those as it treats any other nonempty STRING.
The rest I think is better compatibility with test synatx when your
shell does not provide "[".
Anyway, we should be supplying what upstream installs.
I asked it just out of curiosity. I agree we should stick to
upstream.
Anyway.... can I now have an i686 signoff? :P
This has taken so long the package is now out of date... I am moving it.